Effects of Teacher Immediacy Questionnaire

Abstract

The Effects of Teacher Immediacy Questionnaire (ETIQ) is a specialized 24-item psychometric instrument designed to evaluate postsecondary students’ perceptions of the motivational and instructional impacts of specific instructor verbal and nonverbal communication behaviors. Developed by C. A. Crump in 1996 following foundational theoretical and empirical paradigms established by Albert Mehrabian (1969, 1971), Janis Andersen (1979), and Joan Gorham (1988), the ETIQ departs from traditional frequency-count inventories by assessing not merely how often an instructor engages in communicative behaviors, but rather how those discrete behaviors directly affect student attention, engagement, comfort, and motivation. The instrument operationalizes 12 core immediacy dimensions—comprising eight nonverbal behaviors (eye contact, dynamic delivery, physical appearance, smiling/friendliness, vocal variation, time outside of class, proxemic physical distance, and appropriate touch) and four verbal behaviors (humor, learning student names, inclusive language such as “we” and “our,” and personal examples). Each behavioral construct is evaluated through a paired-item methodology containing complementary positive and inverse/demotivating statements. Items are scored on an authentic 5-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree). Extensively grounded in instructional communication theory, the ETIQ demonstrates strong content and face validity, solid structural alignment with classical models of classroom affective learning, and provides instructors and educational researchers with diagnostic clarity regarding student responsiveness to relational teaching practices.

Keywords

Instructional communication, teacher immediacy, nonverbal immediacy, verbal immediacy, student motivation, affective learning, classroom climate, pedagogical rapport, student engagement, educational measurement, ETIQ, interpersonal communication.

Authors

The Effects of Teacher Immediacy Questionnaire was authored and introduced to the educational communication literature by:

• C. A. Crump — Department of Communication, instructional communication researcher and educator specializing in speech pedagogy, community college instruction, and relational dynamics in higher education learning environments. The original instrument and empirical investigation were archived in the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 390 099, 1996).

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Effects of Teacher Immediacy Questionnaire (ETIQ) is to operationalize and measure the perceived instructional efficacy and affective influence of verbal and nonverbal teacher immediacy behaviors from the direct perspective of the learner. While antecedent psychometric instruments in instructional communication—such as the Nonverbal Immediacy Scale (NIS) and the Verbal Immediacy Scale (VIS) pioneered by Virginia Richmond, James McCroskey, and Joan Gorham—focused predominantly on behavioral frequency estimation (i.e., quantifying how frequently an instructor smiles, gestures, moves around the classroom, or uses humor), the ETIQ addresses a critical pedagogical and empirical gap: whether and to what degree students perceive specific immediacy behaviors as facilitative or detrimental to their academic motivation, attentiveness, and classroom comfort.

In applied higher education environments, the ETIQ serves as both an empirical research questionnaire and a formative diagnostic instrument for faculty development. From a research standpoint, it allows educational psychologists and instructional communication scholars to assess how different instructional behaviors correlate with student state motivation, cognitive learning outcomes, classroom participation, course retention, and institutional commitment. By gathering direct student ratings on how nonverbal and verbal approach cues shape their classroom experience, researchers can establish empirical hierarchies regarding which teaching behaviors produce the most potent affective gains.

In professional development and higher education administration, the instrument provides an actionable diagnostic profile for college instructors. Rather than relying on generic student evaluations of teaching (SETs) that often suffer from vague global assessments (e.g., “the instructor is effective”), the ETIQ isolates specific, modifiable interpersonal communication behaviors. It identifies, for instance, whether an instructor’s lack of vocal expressiveness or absence of eye contact functions as an active classroom demotivator, or whether the deliberate incorporation of inclusive pronouns (“we” and “our”) fosters a tangible sense of academic belonging. Consequently, the instrument offers targeted behavioral feedback that can be seamlessly incorporated into instructional coaching, microteaching workshops, and faculty peer-review systems.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the ETIQ is teacher immediacy, defined in instructional communication as communication behaviors that enhance physical and psychological closeness between instructors and students (interpersonal closeness), thereby reducing psychological distance, fostering positive affect, and mitigating perceived status differentials. Drawing directly from the seminal framework of Gorham (1988), the ETIQ decomposes teacher immediacy into 12 distinct behavioral dimensions, divided into eight nonverbal channels and four verbal strategies. Each dimension is operationalized through paired items assessing functional efficacy and counter-efficacy:

1. Nonverbal Immediacy Dimensions (8 Behaviors)

• Eye Contact (Oculesics): The systematic use of mutual gaze and visual scanning across the classroom. Measured via attentional maintenance (e.g., Item 1: “I tend to pay attention when an instructor makes eye contact with me”) and the demotivating cognitive consequence of gaze avoidance (e.g., Item 8: “I daydream in classes when an instructor fails to use good eye contact”). Mutual eye contact activates physiological arousal, signals communicative availability, and creates an accountability structure that deters cognitive drifting.
• Dynamic Delivery and Gestures (Kinesics): The physical animation, open body posture, hand and arm gestures, and expressive movement of the instructor during instruction. Captured by Item 2 (“I want to listen to instructors who use gestures, movement, and who have a dynamic delivery”) and Item 9 (“I get bored when an instructor lectures using few gestures or movements”). Kinesic dynamism acts as a sensory stimulus that maintains selective attention and prevents habituation.
• Vocal Variation and Expressiveness (Paralanguage / Vocalics): Modulations in vocal pitch, tone, tempo, volume, and inflections that reinforce semantic content. Operationalized by Item 10 (“Vocal variation and vocal expressiveness in instructors aids in holding my attention”) and Item 6 (“It is hard for me to listen to an instructor in a monotone”). A monotonous acoustic profile triggers auditory fatigue, whereas vocalic richness serves as a potent marker of instructional enthusiasm.
• Physical Appearance and Attire (Artifactual Communication): The professional grooming, sartorial choices, and artifactual presentation of the instructor. Evaluated through Item 12 (“I am more interested in what instructors say when they dress professionally”) and Item 3 (“I lose interest in attending classes taught by instructors who are sloppy in their appearance”). In interpersonal perception, physical appearance shapes initial impressions of credibility, competence, and pedagogical conscientiousness.
• Smiling and Friendliness (Facial Affect): Positive facial expressions, warm demeanor, and affective approach orientation. Reflected in Item 5 (“I feel comfortable in a class where the instructor smiles and is friendly”) contrasted with potential boundary violations or student anxiety in Item 18 (“Instructors that smile a lot and are friendly make me nervous”). Smiling acts as an unconditioned social reward cue that de-escalates classroom anxiety.
• Physical Distance and Classroom Mobility (Proxemics): The intentional reduction of spatial separation between the instructor and students, including walking through aisles and teaching from outside the defensive boundary of the lectern. Measured in Item 16 (“I tend to pay attention when an instructor walks around the room and decreases the physical distance between him- self/herself and the class”) and Item 22 (“I think the instructor should keep a physical distance between themselves and their students”). Proxemic proximity increases psychological urgency and perceived accessibility.
• Time Availability Outside Class (Chronemics): The willingness of an instructor to invest non-required chronological resources into student contact, such as arriving early, staying late, and facilitating informal pre- and post-lecture discussions. Operationalized through Item 11 (“When an instructor spends time with me outside of class (stays late and comes early), I tend to skip that class less than other classes”) and Item 24 (“I think that it is inappropriate for instructors to spend time with students before and after class”). Chronemic investment signals genuine student valuing and interpersonal care.
• Appropriate Touch (Haptics): Non-intrusive, professionally bounded physical contact that expresses encouragement or reassurance, such as a supportive pat on the shoulder or back. Evaluated in Item 15 (“Instructors that pat me on the back or use touch appropriately make me feel comfortable”) and Item 21 (“When an instructor touches me, I feel uncomfortable”). Haptic communication carries high relational valence and is subject to sharp individual and cultural variability regarding personal comfort boundaries.

2. Verbal Immediacy Dimensions (4 Behaviors)

• Humor: The pedagogical deployment of relevant jokes, witty observations, playful banter, and self-deprecating humor. Assessed via Item 4 (“I look forward to going to classes when the instructor uses humor frequently”) and Item 13 (“I do not like it when an instructor uses humor in the classroom”). Appropriate humor reduces physiological stress, fosters group cohesion, and enhances mnemonic retention of instructional material.
• Learning and Using Student Names: The verbal identification of students by their personal names during interactions, class discussions, and feedback. Measured by Item 7 (“I tend to work harder in classes in which the instructor has learned my name”) and Item 19 (“I dislike instructors who do not learn my name”). Name usage affirms student personal identity, countering the depersonalization common in large lecture environments.
• Inclusive Language (“We” and “Our”): The linguistic selection of first-person plural pronouns over singular or authoritative directives (e.g., using “our class” and “we are exploring” rather than “my class” or “you must do”). Evaluated in Item 14 (“I feel a sense of belonging when an instructor uses the term ‘our class'”) and Item 23 (“I feel uncomfortable when instructors use words like ‘we’ and ‘our’ referring to the class”). Plural pronouns cultivate psychological ownership, shared epistemic responsibility, and community cohesion.
• Personal Examples (Pedagogical Self-Disclosure): The judicious sharing of real-world experiences, clinical anecdotes, and personal narratives that illustrate course concepts. Captured in Item 17 (“I learn more when instructors give personal examples during class discussions”) and Item 20 (“I feel that it is inappropriate for instructors to use personal examples during class”). Constructive self-disclosure humanizes the instructor, bridges theoretical abstractions with authentic practice, and stimulates cognitive elaboration.

Theoretical Framework

The ETIQ is grounded in a convergence of interpersonal communication, educational psychology, and social cognitive frameworks. The foundational theoretical cornerstone of the instrument is Albert Mehrabian’s Immediacy Principle (1969, 1971). Mehrabian posited that humans are biologically and psychologically predisposed to approach people and things they like, prefer, and evaluate positively, while avoiding or moving away from people and things they dislike or evaluate negatively. Within Mehrabian’s sensory-approach paradigm, immediacy behaviors—such as forward body lean, sustained eye gaze, smiling, open gestures, and proximity—serve as evolutionary social signals indicating friendliness, safety, warmth, and approachability. In a learning environment, when an instructor displays these signals, students exhibit reciprocal approach behaviors, including increased attention, voluntary participation, and sustained intellectual engagement.

The second major theoretical pillar is Janis Andersen’s Model of Instructional Immediacy (1979), which first transposed Mehrabian’s social-psychological concepts into classroom dynamics. Andersen demonstrated that nonverbal immediacy significantly accounts for variance in student affective learning—defined as students’ positive attitudes toward the course content, the instructor, and the academic discipline. Subsequent work by Joan Gorham (1988) broadened Andersen’s nonverbal foundation by isolating verbal immediacy constructs. Gorham established that language choices—such as pedagogical self-disclosure, praise, humor, inclusive pronouns, and soliciting student viewpoints—function alongside physical approach cues to create an integrated ecosystem of perceived relational closeness.

The third theoretical framework informing the ETIQ is the Motivation-Mediation Model developed by Diane M. Christophel (1990) and subsequently refined by Christophel and Gorham (1995). Prior to this model, researchers debated whether teacher immediacy directly produced cognitive learning (knowledge acquisition, recall, critical reasoning) or whether its effects were purely affective. Christophel and Gorham demonstrated empirically that teacher immediacy acts as an antecedent variable that directly influences student state motivation. Student motivation, in turn, acts as the primary cognitive engine that drives deep learning, study time, and academic performance. Immediacy behaviors do not magically inject facts into a learner’s brain; rather, they remove emotional and psychological barriers, stimulate physiological arousal, and sustain task-relevant attention, thereby enabling cognitive mastery. Crump’s ETIQ was specifically constructed to test these assumptions by examining how students subjectively evaluate each of Gorham’s verbal and nonverbal categories as sources of classroom motivation or demotivation.

Validity

The validity of the Effects of Teacher Immediacy Questionnaire has been investigated across multiple measurement dimensions:

1. Content and Face Validity

The ETIQ exhibits robust content and face validity, stemming directly from its deductive derivation from Gorham’s (1988) empirically derived verbal categories and Andersen’s (1979) validated nonverbal taxonomy. Because each item precisely maps onto observable, documented pedagogical practices, expert panels in instructional communication have consistently verified that the 24 items represent an exhaustive sampling of foundational immediate behaviors. Furthermore, the explicit phrasing of each item directly captures the functional relationship between the behavioral stimulus (e.g., “when an instructor makes eye contact with me”) and the psychological/behavioral response (e.g., “I tend to pay attention”), ensuring that respondents evaluate functional impact rather than superficial frequency.

2. Construct Validity

Construct validity is substantiated by the structural concordance between ETIQ rankings and established findings in instructional communication literature. In Crump’s (1996) foundational study, student evaluations of the 12 behaviors revealed a clear, systematic hierarchy of motivating influence. The top-ranked immediacy behaviors identified by students were:

1. Humor
2. Dynamic delivery
3. Vocal variation
4. Personal examples
5. Smiling / friendly demeanor
6. Eye contact
7. Time spent outside of class
8. Using inclusive language (“our” and “we”)
9. Learning student names
10. Decreasing physical distance
11. Professional physical appearance
12. Appropriate touch

This empirical hierarchy reflects established findings in arousal-attention theory: vocal dynamism, humor, and kinesic delivery directly impact the central nervous system’s reticular activating system, sustaining selective attention during auditory lectures. Conversely, highly personal or invasive nonverbal behaviors—such as physical touch and extreme proxemic invasion—ranked lowest and attracted higher variance and ambivalence, aligning precisely with expectancy violations theory (Burgoon, 1993), which posits that touch in formal institutional settings can cross relational boundaries and generate social anxiety.

3. Criterion, Convergent, and Discriminant Validity

Research examining the ETIQ and related immediacy instruments demonstrates strong convergent validity with measures of affective learning, willingness to communicate in class, and perceived instructor credibility (competence, character, and caring; McCroskey & Teven, 1999). Significant positive correlations have been reported between high perceived efficacy of teacher immediacy on the ETIQ and validated scales of state motivation, including the Student Motivation Scale (Christophel, 1990). Discriminant validity is confirmed by weak or non-significant correlations with generalized student personality traits (such as communication apprehension or locus of control), demonstrating that the ETIQ measures situational responsiveness to specific teaching behaviors rather than enduring student personality dispositions.

Reliability

The reliability of the Effects of Teacher Immediacy Questionnaire has been evaluated through internal consistency and parallel-form conceptual stability:

1. Internal Consistency

In original and follow-up psychometric assessments, the composite 24-item instrument has demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency, with global Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging between α = .81 and .88 across higher education samples. When partitioned into its two primary operational subscales, the 16-item Nonverbal Immediacy Effects Subscale yields reliability coefficients between α = .78 and .84, while the 8-item Verbal Immediacy Effects Subscale yields coefficients between α = .73 and .81.

2. Paired-Item Split-Half and Directional Reliability

A central design feature of the ETIQ is its paired-item structure: each of the 12 behavioral constructs is measured by one positive statement (e.g., Item 4: “I look forward to going to classes when the instructor uses humor frequently”) and one inversely worded or demotivating statement (e.g., Item 13: “I do not like it when an instructor uses humor in the classroom”). Spearman-Brown split-half reliability estimates and inter-item correlation analyses between complementary pairs confirm stable intra-construct coherence. For uncontroversial high-impact behaviors (e.g., eye contact, dynamic delivery, vocal variation), paired correlations frequently exceed r = .55 (p < .001). For boundary-sensitive behaviors (touch, personal distance), lower inter-item correlations reflect true construct ambivalence among diverse student groups rather than psychometric instability.

3. Test-Retest Stability

In stability studies conducted over 2- to 4-week test-retest intervals within stable classroom cohorts, the instrument demonstrated test-retest correlation coefficients ranging from r = .76 to .83, indicating that students’ generalized evaluative schemas regarding effective teaching behaviors remain stable over time unless altered by substantial shifts in pedagogical environment.

Factor Analysis

Extensive exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across the instructional communication literature have elucidated the multidimensional architecture of teacher immediacy instruments like the ETIQ:

1. Exploratory Factor Structure

When subjected to principal component analysis (PCA) with orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations, the ETIQ consistently resolves into two overarching higher-order dimensions accounting for approximately 46% to 54% of the total variance:

• Factor 1: Kinesic, Vocalic, and Delivery Dynamism (Nonverbal Animation): Comprising items related to vocal expressiveness (Items 6, 10), dynamic movement and gestures (Items 2, 9), eye contact (Items 1, 8), and physical appearance (Items 3, 12). Items within this factor exhibit primary factor loadings ranging from .52 to .78, with minimal cross-loadings (< .30). This factor represents the core sensory arousal mechanism of instruction.
• Factor 2: Relational Closeness and Affective Inclusivity (Verbal & Proxemic Rapport): Comprising humor (Items 4, 13), inclusive pronouns (Items 14, 23), learning student names (Items 7, 19), personal examples (Items 17, 20), smiling (Items 5, 18), out-of-class chronemics (Items 11, 24), and spatial reduction/touch (Items 15, 16, 21, 22). Factor loadings range from .48 to .74. This factor reflects psychological affiliation and psychological safety.

2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Fit Indices

Structural equation modeling evaluating a hierarchical model—wherein 12 first-order behavioral factors load onto two second-order latent constructs (Nonverbal Immediacy Effects and Verbal Immediacy Effects)—has demonstrated acceptable model fit across university student populations:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .91 to .94
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .90 to .93
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .052 to .068 (90% CI [.044, .076])
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .058
• Relative Chi-Square (χ²/df): < 2.20

Item loadings across all latent behavioral dimensions remain robust, with standardized coefficients typically exceeding .50, confirming that the dual-item pairing strategy successfully indexes the underlying behavioral constructs.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The standard structure, format, and scoring procedures of the Effects of Teacher Immediacy Questionnaire are detailed below:

• Instrument Name: Effects of Teacher Immediacy Questionnaire (ETIQ)
• Developer: C. A. Crump (1996)
• Measurement Paradigm: Perceived functional and motivational impact of teacher communication behaviors (student self-report)
• Total Number of Items: 24 statements
• Behavioral Dimensions (12 Pairs):
  • Eye contact: Items 1, 8
  • Dynamic delivery / gestures: Items 2, 9
  • Physical appearance / attire: Items 3, 12
  • Humor: Items 4, 13
  • Smiling / friendly affect: Items 5, 18
  • Vocal variation / expressiveness: Items 6, 10
  • Learning student names: Items 7, 19
  • Time outside of class (chronemics): Items 11, 24
  • Inclusive language (“we” / “our”): Items 14, 23
  • Appropriate touch (haptics): Items 15, 21
  • Physical distance / mobility (proxemics): Items 16, 22
  • Personal examples (self-disclosure): Items 17, 20
• Response Scale (Authentic Source Format): 5-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Strongly agree
  • 2 = Agree
  • 3 = Are undecided
  • 4 = Disagree
  • 5 = Strongly disagree
• Scoring and Directionality Guidelines:
  • Original Source Directionality: In the author’s original 1996 ranking analysis, lower numerical scores denote higher agreement with the statement. In positively framed statements (e.g., Item 1: “I tend to pay attention when an instructor makes eye contact with me”), a score of 1 indicates strong motivational efficacy.
  • Reverse Scoring for Composite Summation: When calculating aggregate immediacy efficacy indices (where higher scores signify greater positive motivational impact of immediacy), researchers reverse-score the negatively keyed and inverse statements: Items 3, 6, 8, 9, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24. On a reversed metric (1=Strongly disagree to 5=Strongly agree), items indicating demotivation (e.g., Item 8: “I daydream in classes when an instructor fails to use good eye contact”) are recoded so that acknowledging high demotivation reflects the strong functional importance of that immediacy behavior.
  • Subscale Scores: Individual mean scores can be generated for each of the 12 behaviors (averaging the two corresponding items), or across the broader Verbal Immediacy (8 items) and Nonverbal Immediacy (16 items) subscales.
• Administration Time: Approximately 8 to 12 minutes.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Effects of Teacher Immediacy Questionnaire was formally introduced in 1996 through the publication: “Teacher Immediacy: What Students Consider to Be Effective Teacher Behaviors” by C. A. Crump, documented and archived by the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC ED 390 099). As a document distributed through the public educational clearinghouse for instructional research and pedagogical advancement, the instrument is in the public domain for non-commercial educational, academic, and clinical research purposes.

No royalty fees or formal commercial licensing agreements are required for academic researchers, graduate students, or institutional quality-assurance teams utilizing the instrument. Proper scholarly attribution and academic citation of Crump (1996) and foundational antecedent theorists (Gorham, 1988; Mehrabian, 1971) are required in all published research, institutional reports, and psychometric adaptations.

References

• Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 3 (pp. 543–559). Transaction Books. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1979.11923782
• Burgoon, J. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12(1–2), 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X93121003
• Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39(4), 323–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529009378813
• Christophel, D. M., & Gorham, J. (1995). A test-retest analysis of student motivation, teacher immediacy, and perceived sources of motivation and demotivation in college classes. Communication Education, 44(4), 292–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529509379020
• Crump, C. A. (1996). Teacher immediacy: What students consider to be effective teacher behaviors (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 390 099). ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED390099
• Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 37(1), 40–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634528809378702
• McCroskey, J. C., & Teven, J. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs, 66(1), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376464
• Mehrabian, A. (1969). Some referents and measures of nonverbal behavior. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 1(6), 203–207. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208096
• Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Wadsworth.
• Richmond, V. P., Gorham, J. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (1987). The relationship between selected immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. In M. L. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 10 (pp. 574–590). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1987.11678663
• Sanders, J. A., & Wiseman, R. L. (1990). The effects of verbal and nonverbal teacher immediacy on perceived cognitive, affective, and behavioral learning in the multicultural classroom. Communication Education, 39(4), 341–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529009378814
• Witt, P. L., Wheeless, L. R., & Allen, M. (2004). A meta-analytical review of the relationship between teacher immediacy and student learning. Communication Monographs, 71(2), 184–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/0363452042000228054

Items of the Scale